I wish that partisan articles like this would provide a link to the bill.

I am guessing that there are other things attached to the bill that the republicans disagree with.

like when the anti gambeling bill was attached to the port security bill

Yeah, and it was a republican senator (Bill Frist - R/Tenn) who got it attached to the Port Security Act without alot of politicians even knowing about it. This seems pretty straightforward & now after years of bipartisan support, repubs are holding back under Obama.

appears there are attachments that include same sex couples and a provision that gives illegal imigrants a temporary visa

i saw where the article said the bill also included protection from violence for gays and illegals but i didn't see any other unrelated rights/protections. if republicans are easing restrictions on beating women, you know it's open season on the gays and brown folks. but that's just the san francisco article. it's not exactly thorough. jgalt asks a good question.

Yeah, and it was a republican senator (Bill Frist - R/Tenn) who got it attached to the Port Security Act without alot of politicians even knowing about it. This seems pretty straightforward & now after years of bipartisan support, repubs are holding back under Obama.

it was frist, goodlatte andkyl that produced that piece of garbage gambling bill. On top of that the they voted for it at 3:00 a.m.Those pricks knew that the democrats had to vote yes for the security bill or else they would have looked like huge idiots. Republicans played them bigtime on that one.To top it off, that dirtbag kyl writes a gambling bill and how gambling is so wrong, yet the hypocrite took huge amounts of cash from the casinos.

it was frist, goodlatte andkyl that produced that piece of garbage gambling bill. On top of that the they voted for it at 3:00 a.m.Those pricks knew that the democrats had to vote yes for the security bill or else they would have looked like huge idiots. Republicans played them bigtime on that one.To top it off, that dirtbag kyl writes a gambling bill and how gambling is so wrong, yet the hypocrite took huge amounts of cash from the casinos.

everytime a law is passed you need to dig deep and figure out who paid for it to be written

EVERY TIME!!!! this is no different than TARP or any other bill that passes congress

I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I predict these upcoming articles from the Chronicle:

Republicans are racists because they want people to have an ID

when they vote.

Republicans are sexists because they don't want the govt to

mandate contraception in health care plans.

Congratulations.

Although one would not have thought it humanly possible, you somehow succeeded in preventing #4 from being the most ridiculous post in this thread.

I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I predict these upcoming articles from the Chronicle:

Republicans are racists because they want people to have an ID

when they vote.

Republicans are sexists because they don't want the govt to

mandate contraception in health care plans.

So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger.... could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?

If this was a stand alone bill I'm sure no one would be against it. But as mentioned above, there are probably earmarks tied to this bill that have nothing to do with the title of the bill.

I usually like to hear both sides but the jackass from the Chronicle only gave us one side. Just because you believed the reporter doesn't mean you are a jackass. It only means you are liberal.

How does this make anyone a liberal?

I am not asking about or believing in the article

I simply asked you....

"So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger.... could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?"

That was all, I never gave or took credibility from the source (which you seem to be hung up on as a deterrent from the actual topic)what are you afraid of that you continue to go there rather then answering the question?

"So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger.... could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?"

That was all, I never gave or took credibility from the source (which you seem to be hung up on as a deterrent from the actual topic)what are you afraid of that you continue to go there rather then answering the question?

Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?

Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?

Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?

not really interested in your personal description of liberals...

simply asked you a question about the conservative perspective...

I did not ask how anyone could be against it... I simply asked about your perspective as to why GOPs are voting against it...

I am pretty sure that a mass murder of puppies are not the earmarks... So lets talk about reality instead...

The article states that the sticking point is too many protections for happy and illegal immigrant victims of violence.

Which are typical GOP talking points/causes...

It also stated that it would broaden tribal rights... I am wondering is it a GOP stance to be anti-native/tribes?IT also

If there is pork (earmarks) tied to the bill that would be why GOP'ers would be against a federal law.

Did you ever think there are laws on the book already covering this? If a man beats his wife or girlfriend in California or New York the local police and DA already handle it. What good would a federal law do?

Activities offered by advertising links to other sites may be deemed an illegal activity in certain jurisdictions. Viewers are specifically warned that they should inquire into the legality of participating in any games and/or activities offered by such other sites. The owner of this website assumes no responsibility for the actions by and makes no representation or endorsement of any of these games and/or activities offered by the advertiser. As a condition of viewing this website viewers agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from the viewer’s participation in any of the games and/or activities offered by the advertiser.